> There are many such contracts and they are confidential, so unfortunately
> I can't post them.
I understand your position - caught in the middle - but you're asking us
as a group to propose technical solutions to requirements that we are
prohibited from reading. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
Likewise, you're asking the W3C to compromise their Open Web principles
on behalf of those same secret requirements.
A bit of transparency here would be nice.
Can we at least get a written summary of requirements from the
stakeholders? I.e. not Netflix, Apple etc. but the people whose
licensing terms are forcing this issue?
> Realistically, I don't think you will get studio requirements posted
> publicly, but that's not a question for me.
Okay, for whom *is* it a question then? It angers me that the W3C might
be tasked with satisfying secret requirements, especially to the
detriment of Open Web principles.
> So, the DRM vendors have solved the problem of creating solutions that
> meet studio requirements and what we are trying to do with EME is provide a
> clean API to integrate these solutions with the HTML Media Element. What
> we're not trying to do is standardize a solution to the studio
> requirements. That would be rather ambitious, I feel.
What we (meaning opponents of EME) are trying to do is propose
alternative technical solutions that would satisfy both the Open Web
principles, *and* the requirements of the content owners. As a first
step, I'm suggesting that we hear what those latter requirements are
from the horse's mouth.
--
Duncan Bayne
ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype:
duncan_bayne
I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours. If there's something
urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me.